Information icon.svg Nominations and Campaigning for the 2022 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now closed.

The election booth is now open!

Rogerian argument

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Carl R. Rogers
Cogito ergo sum
Logic and rhetoric
Icon logic.svg
Key articles
General logic
Bad logic

A Rogerian argument is a type of argument in which one tries to seek a middle ground between two opposing arguments rather than trying to dictate a "winner" unlike in a traditional Aristotelian argument.[1] This kind of argument is largely inspired by the 20th-century American psychologist Carl Rogers.Wikipedia One may "win" in a Rogerian argument by successfully convincing the opponent to consider alternative arguments.[2]

Alternative name[edit]

  • Rogerian rhetoric

Typical usage in argument[edit]

  1. Person 1: Raises argument
  2. Person 2: Raises argument
  3. Person 1 or 2: Creates argument , a 'compromise' of and that typically contains premises from both and
  4. Person 1 or 2: Argues argument typically using the combined premises of and

As rhetoric versus an argument[edit]

Suppose that the Rogerian argument technique is being used on two arguments, and , that are disjoint. That is, . Then, it is impossible to have a formal argument using Rogerian argument techniques; there are no common premises. At this point, the purpose of deploying Rogerian rhetoric is more analogous to a negotiation medium than an argument technique whose purpose is to simply understand the opposing argument rather than trying to change it.[3]

See also[edit]

References[edit]